The 'politics of consensus' in Nepal

The battle between consensus politics and
majoritarian politics has not only brought Nepalese politics to a standstill,
but has extended a turbulent political transition into an uncertain future.

The phrase, ‘politics of consensus’ (PoC) may sound
extremely positive. But it is rarely practiced in current competitive democratic
systems throughout the world. In Nepal, it is regarded as a mantra relied upon to resolve the
current political crisis. The ‘politics of consensus’ has therefore become both
a panacea and a practise riven with contradictions, especially in those
localities where consensus is undermined by one of the core values of
democracy: ‘majority rule’. This is all the more problematic because of the
constitutional vacuum, due to the dissolution of Constituent Assembly (CA) in
June 2012, and subsequent problems in power sharing between the political
parties.

The idea of a PoC was initiated in 2006 in the Comprehensive
Peace Accord (CPA) between former rebel-Unified Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist
(UCPN-M, hereafter Maoists) - and
the government of the Seven Party Alliance (SPA), to end a decade long civil
war. The preamble of Nepal’s Interim Constitution 2007 clearly stated that PoC is
one of the core values binding political parties to work together to
reconstruct a new Nepal. This is an attempt to circumvent confrontation between
parties when it came to re-building a new peaceful and prosperous Nepal, irrespective
of divided political ideologies.

Nepal was successful in pursuing a PoC under the
leadership of the Nepali Congress, around the time of the Constituent Assembly
(CA) election in 2008. It facilitated two major historic achievements –
peaceful CA elections to establish an inclusive Nepalese republican, secular
and federal state in 2008; and the abolition not only of the monarchy, but also
the idea of a centralised, Hindu-dominated polity in Nepal.

Out of a total 601 CA
seats, the Maoists won 229 seats (38.10 %), the Nepali Congress won 115 seats
(19.13%), the UML won 108 seats (17.97%), the Madhesi Jana Adhikar Forum (MJF)
won 54 seats (8.98%), the Tarai-Madhes Loktantrik Party (TMLP) won 21 seats
(3.49%) and the remaining 10.33 per cent of the votes were won by 56 other
minor parties and two independent candidates (Nepal Election Commission, 2008).
Although the Maoists became the major political party, they did not have a majority
to form its government and pass a new constitution and important bills. To
overcome this democratic loophole, Nepalese parties devised a new political
strategy i.e. to form ‘consensus government’. Leaders of all parties agreed upon
and vociferously advocated their commitment to PoC.

However there is an undercurrent of political
friction between the Maoists and the SPA -especially the Nepali Congress and
United Marxist and Leninist (UML) communist party of Nepal. The Maoists claim
to be a progressive force, portraying the SPA as traditional and non-dynamic;
whereas, the SPA claims it is a protector of liberal democracy from the radical
leftists i.e. Maoists. These two forces are rigidly committed to maintaining
the liberal multi-party parliamentary system which they established after the
authoritarian Hindu Kind had stepped down in 1990. But the Maoists as part of
their push to socialism in Nepal have an identity-based federalism on their
agenda. This Maoist agenda of federalism has raised immense hope among the
politically excluded and marginalized groups and indigenous ethnic groups of
Nepal.

However, the idea of federalism has become
extremely controversial, risking plunging Nepal into further uncertainty and ethnic
conflict. There is even a threat that the
historical achievement which saw the declaration of Nepal as a secular,
democratic republic in 2008 will be reversed, especially after the dissolution
of the CA. This crisis arises not only because of the multi-level complexities
associated with identity politics and federalism in an ethnically diverse
society like Nepal (Nepal has 105 ethnic groups) but also because of the incompatability
of liberal democratic majoritarian values with the undercurrents of the various
local crises.

Basically the PoC is a transitional political
arrangement agreed by Nepal to bypass the trouble associated with majority rule
in a parliamentary democracy. This agreement was meant to hold while two major
tasks were brought to a peaceful conclusion: the integration of the Maoist
forces into the Nepalese army, which is almost complete now, and the drafting
of a new constitution. But the political parties, including the Maoists, who
signed up to this consensus had not anticipated the dramatic change in the
political scene that took place after the Constituent Assembly (CA) election in
2008. It was not expected that Maoist would replace the Nepali Congress and
UML, and become the largest party in Nepal through peaceful election.
Consequently, the political card of ‘majority rule’ entered onto the political
stage, trapping Nepal into the vicious cycle of a majoritarian politics.

When the Nepali Congress - the main liberal
democratic party of Nepal - established itself as a strong opposition to the Maoists
soon after these elections, the Maoists tried to ignore its presence. Because
of this political polarization, the position of the UML and a new regional
force, the Madhesi parties’ (MJF and TMLP) has become crucial to the
government formation. Both have cleverly deployed their position. The UML has
led the government twice, despite being the third largest party. MJF leaders
have also been in power since 2008, enjoying powerful positions and ministries.
So neither a consensus government nor a PoC have been fully practiced. Pro-Maoist
analysts argue that this is because of the humiliating defeat of the Nepali
Congress and the UML in the CA. Others criticise the Maoists as dogmatic
orthodox communists incapable of cooperating with the liberal parties that they
discredit.

In the five years since the CA election, the
government of Nepal has changed four times. At present the Nepali Congress and
UML are out on the street campaigning to topple Dr. Baburam Bhattari
(vice-chairman of Maoist-led government – a government in coalition with the Madhesi
parties since August 2011). One of their main demands is to form a ‘consensus
government’ and to go for new CA election in order to end the present political
crisis. The battle between consensus politics and majoritarian politics has not
only brought Nepalese politics to a standstill, but has also halted any
economic progress. Moreover it has extended a turbulent political transition into
an uncertain future.

About the author

Sanoj Tulachan is a doctoral researcher at
Warwick University. He was engaged in humanitarian and development
projects in Nepal from 2003 to 2009.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence.
If you have any queries about republishing please contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.